Comparing Ecosystem Goods and Services Provided by Restored and Native Lands

被引:72
作者
Dodds, Walter K. [1 ]
Wilson, Kymberly C. [2 ]
Rehmeier, Ryan L. [3 ]
Knight, G. Layne [4 ]
Wiggam, Shelly
Falke, Jeffrey A.
Dalgleish, Harmony J. [5 ]
Bertrand, Katie N. [6 ]
机构
[1] Kansas State Univ, Div Biol, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA
[2] Arizona Dept Water Resources, Phoenix, AZ USA
[3] Simpson Coll, Indianola, IA USA
[4] Kansas Dept Hlth & Environm, Topeka, KS USA
[5] Utah State Univ, Dept Wildland Resources, Logan, UT 84322 USA
[6] S Dakota State Univ, Dept Wildlife & Fisheries Sci, Brookings, SD 57007 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
restoration; conservation; ecosystem services; ecosystem valuation; ecosystem goods;
D O I
10.1641/B580909
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
We determined the relative benefits for eight categories of ecosystem goods and services associated with native and restored lands across the conterminous United States. Less than 10% of most native US ecosystems remain, and the proportion that is restored varies widely by biome. Restored lands offer 31% to 93% of native land benefits within a decade after restoration, with restored wetlands providing the most economic value and deserts providing the least. Restored ecosystems that recover rapidly and produce valuable commodities return a higher proportion of total value. The relative values of the benefits provided by restoration vary both by biome and by the ecosystem goods and services of interest. Our analysis confirms that conservation should be the first priority, but that restoration programs across geographic regions can have substantial value. "No net loss" policies should recognize that restored lands are not necessarily equivalent to native areas with regard to estimated ecosystem benefits.
引用
收藏
页码:837 / 845
页数:9
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, EC WELLB FRAM ASS
[2]   Ecology - Economic reasons for conserving wild nature [J].
Balmford, A ;
Bruner, A ;
Cooper, P ;
Costanza, R ;
Farber, S ;
Green, RE ;
Jenkins, M ;
Jefferiss, P ;
Jessamy, V ;
Madden, J ;
Munro, K ;
Myers, N ;
Naeem, S ;
Paavola, J ;
Rayment, M ;
Rosendo, S ;
Roughgarden, J ;
Trumper, K ;
Turner, RK .
SCIENCE, 2002, 297 (5583) :950-953
[3]   On measuring economic values for nature [J].
Bockstael, NE ;
Freeman, AM ;
Kopp, RJ ;
Portney, PR ;
Smith, VK .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2000, 34 (08) :1384-1389
[4]   Chesapeake Bay eutrophication: Scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agriculture [J].
Boesch, DF ;
Brinsfield, RB ;
Magnien, RE .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2001, 30 (02) :303-320
[5]  
Claassen R, 2001, 794 USDA
[6]  
COSGROVE S, 2000, FOREST THEIR GREEN E
[7]   The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital [J].
Costanza, R ;
dArge, R ;
deGroot, R ;
Farber, S ;
Grasso, M ;
Hannon, B ;
Limburg, K ;
Naeem, S ;
ONeill, RV ;
Paruelo, J ;
Raskin, RG ;
Sutton, P ;
vandenBelt, M .
NATURE, 1997, 387 (6630) :253-260
[8]  
*COUNC EC ADV, 1998, KYOT PROT PRES POL A
[9]  
COX KW, 1996, WETLANDS BIODIVERSIT, pCH7
[10]  
DODDS WK, 2002, ECOLOGY CONCEPTS ENV